dismissed EB-1A Case: Business

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. A3042 
Washington, DC 20529 
'dentiffing data deleted to 
prevent dwdy imwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
 r" 
5s 
- 
Office: CALIFORNIA SERVICE CENTER 
 Date~q~~ 3 1 2Q@ 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as an Alien of Extraordinary Ability Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 8 1153(b)(l)(A) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS : 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
cided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
II 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The Director, California Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant 
visa petition, which is now before the Administrative Appeals Office on appeal. The appeal will be 
dismissed. 
The petitioner seeks classification as an "alien of extraordinary ability" in business, pursuant to section 
203(b)(l)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. $ 11 53(b)(l)(A). The director 
determined the petitioner had not established the sustained national or international acclaim necessary 
to qualify for classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. Specifically, the director appears to 
have concluded that the petitioner does not meet any of the ten regulatory criteria, of which an alien 
must meet three to be eligible for the classification sought. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director failed to accord sufficient weight to the reference letters 
submitted. Counsel also briefly addresses eight of regulatory criteria. The petitioner submits additional 
evidence. 
While some of the director's analysis is confusing, he raised valid concerns. The petitioner has not 
overcome all of those concerns on appeal. Specifically, we find that while the petitioner has performed 
a leading or critical role for his distinguished employers pursuant to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(viii), he has not established that he meets any of the other criteria. 
Before we address the specific eligibility requirements and the evidence submitted, we note at the 
outset that the petitioner relies heavily on letters from colleagues who provide general assertions that 
the petitioner meets various criteria. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) may, in its discretion, use as advisory opinions 
statements submitted as expert testimony. See Matter of Caron International, 19 I&N Dec. 791,795 
(Comm. 1988). However, CIS is ultimately responsible for making the final determination regarding 
an alien's eligibility for the benefit sought. Id. The submission of letters from experts supporting the 
petition is not presumptive evidence of eligibility; CIS may evaluate the content of those letters as to 
whether they support the alien's eligibility. See id. at 795-796. CIS may even give less weight to an 
opinion that is not corroborated, in accord with other information or is in any way questionable. Id. 
at 795; See also Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 165 (Comm. 1998) (citing Matter of Treasure 
Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg. Comm. 1972)). 
In addition, the petition must be filed with the initial evidence required by regulation. 
 8 C.F.R. 
$ 103.2(b)(l). The non-existence or other unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of 
ineligibility. 8 C.F.R. $ 103.2(b)(2). The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 8 103.2(b)(2) provides: 
Submitting secondary evidence and afidavits. (i) General. The non-existence or other 
unavailability of required evidence creates a presumption of ineligibility. If a required 
document, such as a birth or marriage certificate, does not exist or cannot be obtained, 
an applicant or petitioner must demonstrate this and submit secondary evidence, such as 
Page 3 
church or school records, pertinent to the facts at issue. If secondary evidence also does 
not exist or cannot be obtained, the applicant or petitioner must demonstrate the 
unavailability of both the required document and relevant secondary evidence, and 
submit two or more affidavits, sworn to or afirmed by persons who are not parties to 
the petition who have direct personal knowledge of the event and circumstances. 
Secondary evidence must overcome the unavailability of primary evidence, and 
affidavits must overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence. 
We find that where the regulations require specific, objective evidence of achievements, such as 
published material about the alien, the primary evidence includes copies of those published materials. 
Letters stating in general terms that the petitioner has received media attention, would need to 
"overcome the unavailability of both primary and secondary evidence." Similarly, primary evidence 
that a publication is "major" would be circulation data from the publication itself. Letters from 
individuals with no association with the publication attesting to the publication being widely read are 
not primary evidence. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part, that: 
(1) Priority Workers. -- Visas shall first be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
aliens described in any of the following subparagraphs (A) through (C): 
(A) Aliens with Extraordinary Ability. -- An alien is described in this subparagraph if -- 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, 
business, or athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or 
international acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the 
field through extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry to the United States will substantially benefit 
prospectively the United States. 
As used in this section, the term "extraordinary ability" means a level of expertise indicating that the 
individual is one of that small percentage who have risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
8 C.F.R. $204.5(h)(2). The specific requirements for supporting documents to establish that an alien 
has sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in his or her field of expertise are set 
forth in the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3). The relevant criteria will be addressed below. It 
should be reiterated, however, that the petitioner must show that he has sustained national or 
international acclaim at the very top level. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director "seems to imply that in order for an extraordinary ability 
beneficiary to properly satisfy a regulatory criterion, the beneficiary must do so in a way that is 
typical of extraordinary ability beneficiaries." Counsel asserts that such reasoning was found to be 
"circular" by the federal district court in Buletini v. US., F. Supp. 1222, 1231 (E.D. Mich. 1994). In 
contrast to the broad precedential authority of the case law of a United States circuit court, the AAO 
is not bound to follow the published decision of a United States district court in matters arising 
within the same district. See Matter of K-S-, 20 I&N Dec. 7 1 5 (BIA 1993). Although the reasoning 
underlying a district judge's decision will be given due consideration when it is properly before the 
AAO, the analysis does not have to be followed as a matter of law. Id. at 719. 
Regardless, the language quoted by counsel was rejecting a requirement that the alien's participation as 
a judge "required or involved extraordinary ability." The court did not explicitly reject any evaluation 
of the quality of the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion. Ultimately, the criteria are designed 
to set the alien apart from others in his field. Some of the criteria are inherent to certain occupations. 
For example, all coaches "judge" the work of their athletes, most competent researchers publish their 
results and all visual artists must "display" their work for sale in order to make a living in their field. 
Thus, the evidence submitted to meet a given criterion must be indicative of or consistent with national 
or international acclaim given the alien's occupation if the statutory standard of acclaim is to have any 
meaning. 
On appeal, counsel asserts that the director erred in characterizing the petitioner as a "banker," an 
"investment banker," a "special advisor banker" and a "banker executive." Counsel asserts that the 
petitioner "has only ever claimed extraordinary ability in the field of Corporate Financial Strategic 
Advisory Services." According to Part 6 of the petition, the petitioner seeks to classify himself as an 
alien with extraordinary ability as an "investment banker." Despite the obvious importance of the 
petitioner's exact position title to the criterion set forth at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(viii), the petitioner's 
employers never provide this information. The petitioner lists his job title as "Senior Associate, 
Investment Banking" on his curriculum vitae. 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3) indicates that an alien can establish sustained national or 
international acclaim through evidence of a one-time achievement (that is, a major, international 
recognized award). Barring the alien's receipt of such an award, the regulation outlines ten criteria, at 
least three of which must be satisfied for an alien to establish the sustained acclaim necessary to qualify 
as an alien of extraordinary ability. The petitioner has submitted evidence that, he claims, meets the 
following criteria.' 
Documentation of the alien's receipt of lesser nationally or internationally recognized prizes or 
awards for excellence in the field of endeavor. 
I 
 The petitioner does not claim to meet or submit evidence relating to the criteria not discussed in this 
decision. 
Initially, counsel asserted that the petitioner met this criterion by his admission to the Indian Institutes 
of Technology (IIT) and the Columbia Business School. The director concluded that these admissions 
"are not awards for achievement in the professional world of endeavor." On appeal, counsel asserts 
that the reference letters "verified the significance of the awards and demonstrated that the awards were 
indeed related to the [petitioner's] field and were therefore recognizable." 
Counsel mischaracterizes the evidence submitted. 
 While the petitioner's references praise the 
reputation of the petitioner's schools and his class standing, none of them assert that the petitioner has 
ever won a prize of any kind, let alone a lesser nationally or internationally recognized prize or award. 
It is instructive that Congress has expressed its view that the possession of a degree, diploma, 
certificate or similar award from a college, university school or other institution of learning shall not 
by itself be considered sufficient evidence of exceptional ability, a lesser classification than the one 
sought. Section 203(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, in a case involving a lesser classification, this office 
concluded that academic performance, measured by such criteria as grade point average, cannot alone 
satisfy the national interest threshold or assure substantial prospective national benefit. Matter of 
New York State Dep't. of Transp., 22 I&N Dec. at 219, n.6. If a degree or academic achievements 
cannot satisfy lesser classifications, they certainly cannot rise to the level of lesser nationally or 
internationally recognized awards or prizes for excellence in the petitioner's field of endeavor. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which classification is 
sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as judged by recognized national 
or international experts in their disciplines or$elds. 
Initially, the petitioner submitted evidence that the petitioner is a Chartered Certified Accountant. The 
certificate reveals that the certification is based on passage of an examination. The petitioner also 
submitted materials about the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) indicating that 
ACCA is "the largest and fastest-growing international accountancy body, with over 300,000 students 
and members in 160 countries." 
Counsel did not address this criterion in his response to the director's request for additional evidence. 
The director concluded that the record contained no evidence "indicating that there are set rules for 
membership including rigid standards to join." On appeal, counsel merely states that evidence to meet 
this criterion was submitted. Counsel further indicates that the petitioner has been invited to join the 
Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE). The petitioner submits an e-mail welcoming the petitioner to join as a TiE- 
Silicon Valley Charter Member. Membership is by invitation only and includes "successful individuals 
from the Indus region, those interested in Indus region and who have achieved success in their 
professions and are now ready to engage in helping others as mentors and advisors." The materials 
reveal that TiE has 42 chapters in nine countries and that the chapters are "separate legal entities" 
Page 6 
managed independently. The e-mail invitation is dated June 13, 2005, well after the filing date of the 
petition. 
Passing a professional examination may suggest a degree of expertise above that ordinarily 
encountered, the standard for aliens of exceptional ability, but is not an outstanding achievement such 
that doing so is indicative of national or international acclaim. Thus, the petitioner's certification as a 
chartered certified accountant is insufficient to meet this criterion. The number of ACCA members 
suggests that it is not particularly exclusive. 
The petitioner must establish his eligibility as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(12); Matter 
of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg. Comm. 1971). Thus, we cannot consider his invitation to join 
TIE. Regardless, the petitioner was invited to join a local, independently managed chapter. Thus, 
membership in this chapter is not judged by national or international experts as required by the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
Finally on appeal, counsel asserts that the reference letters "verified that the [petitioner] has indeed 
been associated with quali@ing associations for his entire professional life." The [director's] 
disregarding of this evidence was clearly inappropriate." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(ii) requires membership in, not association with, an 
organization that requires outstanding achievements of its members. Moreover, the regulation requires 
evidence of these memberships. Primary evidence of such membership would be the membership card 
itself or comparable official evidence from the association itself. See 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(b)(2) quoted 
above. As such, we need not rely on the assertions made in reference letters without evidence that both 
primary and secondary evidence are unavailable. The petitioner has provided no such evidence. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Published materials about the alien in professional or major trade publications or other major 
media, relating to the alien S work in the jield for which classification is sought. Such evidence 
shall include the title, date, and author of the material, and any necessary translation. 
Initially, counsel quoted the petitioner's references for the proposition that this criterion is not readily 
applicable to the petitioner's field. The references further assert that there has been published material 
about the petitioner's work in Tanzania. For the reasons discussed above, the primary evidence of 
those published materials includes copies of the articles themselves. The petitioneE submitted a "media 
release" posted on Tanzania's National Bank of Commerce's website discussing its own takeover by 
the south African and African banking giant  he petitioner ;so submitted articles 
posted at about Celestica's purchase of an Avaya plant, a financial deal between 
Schroeder Ventures and Veba Electronics and Nortel's sale of a unit to Bookham. 
 Finally, the 
petitioner submitted articles posted at DDi's own website about its offering of convertible subordinated 
notes. The petitioner is not mentioned by name in any of these materials. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, which included a specific request for 
evidence that the materials appeared in major media, counsel responded only that additional evidence 
of media coverage is being submitted. The petitioner submits an article in India West: Business 
Magazine about a conference at the University of California, Berkeley. While the petitioner is 
identified in a photograph caption, he is not named in the article itself. The article is clearly "about" the 
conference, not the petitioner. 
The director noted that the initial evidence included articles that did not mention the petitioner. The 
director then appears to confuse articles by the petitioner with the evidence submitted to meet this 
criterion. Finally, in a confusing paragraph that does not relate well to the evidence submitted, the 
director implies that the petitioner has been cited and then discounts citations as evidence to meet this 
criterion. On appeal, counsel notes again that one of the petitioner's references asserted that this 
criterion is not applicable to the petitioner's field. Yet, in the introduction to the appellate brief, 
counsel continues to maintain that the petitioner meets this criterion. 
The plain language of the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(3)(iii) is unambiguous, the published 
materials must be "about the alien." It defies logic to suggest that articles that are about corporate 
mergers and buyouts with which the petitioner was involved but that fail to even mention the petitioner 
by name can be considered "about" the petitioner in any reasonable interpretation of the word. Our 
conclusion is consistent with the statutory standard of national or international acclaim. Published 
material that fails to mention the petitioner by name cannot garner him any recognition, let alone 
acclaim. 
We acknowledge that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. 6 204.5(h)(4) allows the submission of "com~arable" 
w w 
evidence where a criterion is not readily applicabl;. 
 Co-Chairman and CO~CEO of 
, asserts that the confidential nature of the petitioner's business 
does not lend itself to public recognition in the media. As stated above, CIS may evaluate the content 
of expert letters and whether such letters are corroborated in the record. 
The record does not support the implication that this criterion is not applicable to the field of finance. 
The issue of ~iliconindia for which the petitioner authored an article includes articles interviewing or 
- 
featuring prominent financial advisors. Given the common know1 
 ajor trade journals with 
national and international circulation exist in the finance field, Mr. 
 bare assertion that this 
criterion is inapplicable is insufficient. It is precisely because published material focusing on an 
individual is rare in any field that evidence of such material is listed as a criterion indicative of national 
or international acclaim. 
Even if we were to accept that this criterion is not readily applicable to the field of finance, the 
regulation at 8 C.F.R. 5 204.5(h)(4) requires the submission of "comparable" evidence. Evidence that 
is otherwise insufficient to meet the plain language of the criterion does not become "comparable" 
simply because the criterion is inapplicable. We find that published material that does not mention the 
petitioner by name is not comparable to the type of published materials featuring the alien contemplated 
by this criterion. 
In light of the above, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. This conclusion 
does not mandate that the published material has no evidentiary value. Rather, the material about 
projects on which the petitioner has worked relates to the significance of the petitioner's projects and 
will be considered below. 
Evidence of the alien's participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of 
others in the same or an alliedfield of speczjkation for which classification is sought. 
Initially, counsel quotes the petitioner's references recounting the petitioner's job duties that involve 
reviewing the work of others. Counsel further asserts that the petitioner was "regularly called upon to 
serve as a panelist in field-related events taking place in his native India." The unsupported assertions 
of counsel do not constitute evidence. Matter of Obaigbena, 19 I&N Dec. 533, 534 (BIA 1988); 
Matter of Laureano, 19 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 1983); Matter of Ramirez-Sanchez, 17 I&N Dec. 503, 506 
(BIA 1980). Primary evidence to meet this evidence might include invitations to judge the work of 
others and official confirmation of the alien's performance of those duties such as credit as a judge or 
editor in a program, journal or book. 
Mrsserts that the petitioner "is regularly called upon to judges [sic] and review the work 
of distinguished fellow professionals in his field. He is a key participant in our corporate recruiting 
efforts. and ~lavs an indimensable role in both our efforts to acaiire outside talent in the field and our 
A d 
internal performance review sessions." , Co-Head of the Technology Investment Banking 
Group at JP Morgan, uses almost identical language to describe the petitioner's duties at JP Morgan. 
Specifically, the petitioner "was regularly called upon to judge and review the work of distinguished 
fellow professionals in his field. He was a key participant in our corporate recruitin efforts and can 
take responsibility for attracting a number of the firm's finest hires." Finally, Mr. g senior 
Partner at Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), asserts that he developed an expertise in 
helping to develop talent and that the petitioner has "this same expertise." Specifically, Mr 
that the petitioner "exercised a facility for judging and reviewing the work of his peers during his 
tenure." Mrdoes not explain what work the petitioner actually judged or reviewed and how these 
duties compare wth the typical duties in the petitioner's occupation. 
The petitioner submitted a certificate recognizing his participation on a panel from the Sparks 1993 
Computer Club and another certificate fiom Banaras Hindu University affirming the petitioner's 
participation on a Computer Club panel during 1 992- 1 993. 
Counsel did not discuss this criterion in response to the director's request for additional evidence. The 
director concluded that the information was too vague and did not demonstrate that the judging 
responsibilities were "limited to executives of outstanding achievement or to renowned executives." 
Page 9 
On appeal, counsel asserts that this conclusion is contradicts the holding in Buletini, 860 F. Supp at 
1231. 
As stated above, the district court decision in Buletini is not binding on us. Nevertheless, we are not 
holding that the petitioner must demonstrate that the judging responsibilities require or involve 
extraordinary ability, the standard rejected by the Buletini court. That said, the evidence submitted to 
meet a given criterion must still be indicative of or consistent with national or international acclaim if 
that statutory standard is to have any meaning. We concur with the director that the reference letters are 
far too vague as to the petitioner's judging responsibilities and their significance. Going on record 
without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for purposes of meeting the burden of proof 
in these proceedings. Matter of Sofici, 22 I&N Dec. at 165 (citing Matter of Treasure Craft of 
California, 14 I&N Dec. at 190). Moreover, as stated above, duties that are inherent to an occupation 
cannot serve to meet a given criterion. Similarly, duties incidental to one's employment are not as 
persuasive as outside judging responsibilities. Although unclear, it appears that the petitioner served on 
a hiring panel for at least two of his employers. While being requested to serve on a hiring panel for 
one's employer is indicative of the employer's recognition, it is not indicative of national or 
international acclaim. 
Finally, not every "panel" judges the work of others. For example, one can serve on a panel of 
speakers. The record lacks evidence of the petitioner's duties while on the computer club panels. 
Regardless, the nature of the club is not indicative of reviewing the work of others in his current field of 
claimed extraordinary ability, financial advising. 
Without evidence that the petitioner has served on an editorial board of a trade journal in his field, as an 
external review panelist for an association with which he is not otherwise associated or in a comparable 
position, we cannot conclude that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien S original scientific, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business-related 
contributions of major significance in the field. 
In evaluating the reference letters, we note that letters containing mere assertions of widespread 
acclaim and vague claims of contributions are less persuasive than letters that specifically identify 
contributions and provide specific examples of how those contributions have influenced the field. 
In addition, letters from independent references who were previously aware of the petitioner through 
his reputation and who have applied his work are far more persuasive than letters from independent 
references who were not previously aware of the petitioner and are merely responding to a 
solicitation to review the petitioner's curriculum vitae and work and provide an opinion based solely 
on this review. Ultimately, evidence in existence prior to the preparation of the petition carries 
greater weight than new materials prepared especially for submission with the petition. An 
individual with sustained national or international acclaim should be able to produce unsolicited 
materials reflecting that acclaim. 
After graduating from the Indian Institutes of Technology, the petitioner worked for 
(PW), PwC's legacy firm, in Tanzania for three years. While there, he advise m t e anzanian 
government on the privatization of state-owned companies. ~r. does not provide the petitioner's 
job title, but asserts that the petitioner "was an exceptionally valued member of PW's East Africa 
practice during his time here as well as a recognized leader within both the firm and his area of 
expertise." Mr.-her attests to the petitioner's "pivotal role" in the success of the privatization 
effort and asserts that many of the state-owned companies would have otherwise gone bankrupt. 
According to ~r the petitioner "played a large role in drafting a number of the industry-specific 
investment and marketing pieces that were published by the United National Development Program 
(UNDP) for potential foreign investors in Tanzania." Primary evidence of these pieces would be copies 
of the pieces themselves, which the petitioner has not submitted. As such, we cannot determine 
whether the petitioner is a credited author or the number of credited authors. 
who collaborated with the petitioner at PW, asserts that the petitioner worked on the 
restructuring of Tanzania's National Bank of Commerce, which was insolvent by the 1990s. Mr. Allen 
does not provide the petitioner's job title, but asserts that the petitioner was "an important member of a 
large PW team drawn from our offices in the UK, Eastern Europe and Africa." 
In addition ormerly the Chief Financial Officer of the National Bank of Tanzania, 
attests to the significance of the petitioner's work at PW. ~r.serts that he requested PW 
send the petitioner to the bank to "provide vital analytical assistance and oversight." The petitioner 
"became a major strategic advisor, directing the analytical work while I and the rest of the team set 
about the task of implanting PW's restructuring initiatives." Mr. redits the petitioner with the 
success of the struggle to revive a key Tanzanian financial institution. 
While Mr. s assertions must be given due consideration, the record does not corroborate his 
statements. The press release from the National Bank of Commerce discusses their takeover by a South 
African bank in August 1999, nearly two years after the petitioner must have left PW because he began 
studying for his MBA at Columbia University in the Fall of 1997. The press release not only fails to 
mention the petitioner, it fails to mention PW. Moreover, it indicates that a due diligence exercise 
"canied out at the end of 1998" reflected that the bank was "technically insolvent." ~r.r. 
fail to explain the significance of the petitioner's work with this bank, which 
mid 1997, given that the bank remained technically insolvent over a year later. 
Subsequently, the petitioner obtained his MBA from Columbia University and went to work for JP 
Morgan. Mr. asserts that the petitioner "was responsible for a number of highly significant 
original contributions to his field during his three years at JP 
contributions include the petitioner's advice to JP Morgan's clients and 
asserts that a deal on which the petitioner worked involving a Japanese 
firm, was covered in the press. Mr. ms not explain, however, how the petitioner's successful 
performance of his job duties constitutes a contribution of major significance to the field. Mr. = 
Page 11 
does not assert that the petitioner has influenced or otherwise impacted the field beyond the deals on 
which he has worked. 
Mr. 
 also discusses the petitioner's successful work with clients of Wells Fargo Bank 
(WFB), a subsidiary of Wells Fargo, asserting that this work "considerably enhanced WFS' already 
sterling reputation within the corporate finance strategic advisory services community." 
Finally, several clients attest to the value of the petitioner's advice. These letters verify the petitioner's 
competence and ability to perform his job duties successfully, but do not explain how the petitioner has 
impacted his field. 
According to the regulation at 8 C.F.R. ij 204.5(h)(3)(v), an alien's contributions must be not only 
original but of major significance in the field. We must presume that the phrase "major significance" 
is not superfluous and, thus, that it has some meaning. See Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 
202, 209 (1997); Bailey v. US., 5 16 U.S. 137, 145 (1 995). It can be expected that a contribution of 
major significance will have an impact beyond the petitioner's clients and employers. The petitioner 
has not established that his valuable advice to his clients has impacted the field of corporate financial 
advice. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade 
publications or other major media. 
As befits someone of his stature within the field, [the petitioner] is responsible for the 
authorship and dissemination of noteworthy field-related articles and presentations. I 
take pride in how these activities reflect well on WFS - through them we are able to 
realize the potential for continued excellence in our endeavors, not to mention 
commercial success. We expect [the petitioner's] work will soon appear in respected 
scholarly journals; I understand a selection of such materials will accompany this 
petition. 
Although Mr. 
 states that examples will accompany the petition, he also implies that the 
petitioner's work had yet to appear in respected scholarly journals. The petitioner submitted an article 
on outsourcing manufacturing in Siliconindia and an unpublished article on leveraged buyouts. The 
petitioner also submitted e-mail messages regarding another as yet unpublished article. Finally, the 
petitioner submitted a certificate from the Institution of Engineers (India) confirming his presentation of 
a paper on environmentally friendly coal in 1992 and a certificate from the Society of Electronics and 
Computer Engineers confirming his presentation of a paper on computer science technology in 1991. 
In response to the director's request for additional evidence, the petitioner submitted articles published 
in Buyouts and ebn after the date of filing. Also after the date of filing, the petitioner participated in a 
Page 12 
conference sponsored by the American India Foundation at the University of California, Berkeley as 
one of the "Other Dignitaries and Table Leaders." Despite the director's specific request for evidence 
of the significance of the publications carrying the petitioner's work such as their circulation, the 
petitioner failed to submit official circulation data for 
 ns or attendance data for the 
conference. Rather, the petitioner submitted a letter fiom 
 Managing Director and Group 
Head of the Private Capital Group at WFS, asserting that Buyouts is "an important Thomson Financial 
publication catering to the financial community," that ebn is "an industry publication with a wide 
audience in the electronics industry and Siliconindia is "a well-read monthly targeted at technology 
companies in the Bay Area." 
The director acknowledged the petitioner's authorship of the articles in Siliconindia and ebn but 
erroneously concluded that the author's bio accompanying the article in Buyouts was submitted as 
published material about the petitioner. The director did not explicitly conclude whether the petitioner 
meets this criterion, but did note that the record lacks evidence of how often Siliconindia is published, 
what geographical area it covers and its circulation. On appeal, counsel asserts that the references 
"verified that the publications were significant and known throughout the industry." 
First, the petitioner's presentations on coal and computer science technology do not appear to fall 
within his claimed area of expertise, finance. Second, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(h)(3)(vi) 
requires evidence of scholarly articles published in professional or major trade publications or other 
major media. Thus, establishing that the publications are professional or major trade publications or 
other major media is an essential element of the criterion. While we do not doubt the sincerity or 
credibility of ~r primary evidence to establish this criterion would be circulation data provided 
by the publication itself, which the petitioner has not submitted. 
Even if we accepted Mr. 
 assertions, the petitioner has not established that he met this criterion 
as of the date of filing. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(12); Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. at 49. As of that 
date the only article the petitioner had authored or presented in hisjeld is the article in Siliconindia. 
~r'indicates that Siliconindia is a local publication. Thus, the article in that publication cannot 
serve to meet this criterion. 
Evidence that the uIien has performed in a leading or criticaI role for organizations or 
establishments that have a distinguished reputation. 
Counsel quotes the references' statements about the petitioner's contributions as evidence to meet this 
criterion. The director also appears to confUse contributions to the field with this criterion. We have 
already considered the petitioner's claimed contributions above. At issue for this criterion are the 
positions the petitioner was hired to fill and the reputation of the entities that hired him. We do not 
contest the nationally distinguished reputations of the entities that have hired the petitioner. Thus, it 
remains to evaluate the positions he was hired to fill. 
Page 13 
Curiously, despite the obvious relevance of the petitioner's actual job title, none of his employers 
provide that information. Instead, their assertions are much more subjective and vague. As stated 
above, Mr- asserts that the petitioner was an "important member" of a team at PW. ~r.= 
attests to the petitioner's "large" role on a particular project at PW and his "major role in establishing 
the office and its infrastructure, maintaining our best practices library and knowledge resources, and 
training other consultants." 
M-sserts that the petitioner was a "key member of JP Morgan's worldwide Systems & 
Semiconductors Practice group and played an anchor role in building the practice by providing adviso 
services of the highest quality to some of the most prestigious companies in the world." 
also references the petitioner's "leadership abilities." 
Mr. 
~r.asserts that the petitioner "has been leading our effort to target tier-one WFB corporate 
banking clients and offer innovative financial advisory services to them." M~.~SCUSS~S the 
work of the petitione 
 on accounts that represent WFB's "most pnze corporate banking 
relationships." Mr. that the petitioner is a "leading performer" at WFB. In a 
subsequent letter, Mr. asserts that the petitioner "spearheaded" WFB's effort to create a 
dedicated practice covering technology sectors. As a result, the petitioner is now WFB's "lead 
technology banker for technology hardware companies including semiconductor, electronics contract 
manufacturing, and electronics design automation companies." 
While information regarding the petitioner's job titles and the organization of his employers would 
have considerably bolstered his claim to meet this criterion, we are satisfied that the petitioner has been 
given critical and leading responsibilities for his employers. As such, the petitioner has established that 
he meets this criterion. 
Evidence that the alien has commanded a high salary or other signzjcantly high remuneration for 
services, in relation to others in the field. 
Several of the petitioner's references assert generally that the petitioner's remuneration has been high. 
For the reasons discussed above, these letters are not primary evidence to meet this criterion. The 
petitioner also submitted evidence that the level two wage in the geographic area where the petitioner 
works is $84,677 annually. The petitioner submitted his joint 2002 tax return reflecting wages of 
$280,825. The total wages on a joint return, however, may not represent the petitioner's income only. 
The petitioner did not submit his Form W-2. Counsel did not address this criterion in his response to 
the director's request for additional evidence. 
The director concluded that the petitioner had not submitted evidence that his "salary is the norm within 
the industry." On appeal, counsel asserts that the petitioner had submitted evidence that his "salary was 
well over 100% greater than the average salary for even the most experienced individuals in his field." 
Counsel asserts that the petitioner has received over $400,000 over the past 18 months. The petitioner 
submits his 2004 joint tax returns reflecting total wages of $220,552 and a pay stub reflecting an annual 
Page 14 
bonus of $222,500 in February 2005. Finally, the petitioner submitted evidence that the top 10 percent 
of financial analysts and personal financial advisors earned more than $108,060 in 2002. 
As discussed above, the petitioner must demonstrate his eligibility as of the date of filing, August 28, 
2003. The only evidence of the petitioner's income prior to that date is the joint income tax return. As 
stated above, a joint tax return, without accompanying pay stubs or Forms W-2, cannot establish the 
income of one person. Thus, the petitioner has not established that he meets this criterion. 
The documentation submitted in support of a claim of extraordinary ability must clearly demonstrate 
that the alien has achieved sustained national or international acclaim and is one of the small percentage 
who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor. 
Review of the record, however, does not establish that the petitioner has distinguished himself as an 
investment banker to such an extent that he may be said to have achieved sustained national or 
international acclaim or to be within the small percentage at the very top of his field. The evidence 
indicates that the petitioner shows talent as an investment banker, but is not persuasive that the 
petitioner's achievements set him significantly above almost all others in his field. Therefore, the 
petitioner has not established eligibility pursuant to section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and the petition 
may not be approved. 
The burden of proof in visa petition proceedings remains entirely with the petitioner. Section 291 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1361. Here, the petitioner has not sustained that burden. Accordingly, the appeal 
will be dismissed. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.